About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 38 of about 39 (some duplicates have been removed)
laws and you've advocated for that as well. >> changing the? >> drug laws. the >> has come since 1989 of advocated legalizing marijuana, controller cannot regulate, tax it. we had a tipping point with regard to marijuana and legalizing it. i think that colorado is going to do that. it's on the ballot in colorado this november, regulate marijuana like alcohol. i think it is going to pass. when it passes and if it doesn't pass the colorado come is going to pass the 50% of americans now say they support the motion. it is a growing number. it's a growing number because people are talking about the issue more than they ever have before, recognizing 90% of the drug problem is prohibition repeated, not use related. that is not to discount the problems of use and abuse, but that should be the focus. i think when we legalize marijuana were going to take giant steps forward regarding all other drugs and that is going to be starting with looking at the drug issue first as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. >> let's get the police that on the streets enforcing real crime. the th
law school in three parts of yale law school on the supreme court for corporately no other law schools in the united states. [laughter] besides those two. it is a bizarre and unfortunate fact i think. but those are help interesting facts about the supreme court. but, frankly, i don't think they're very important. here's an important fact about the supreme court. there are five republicans and four democrats. i will speak for somewhat longer, but this is basically all you need to know. [laughter] if there's a take away here, i've gotten to the point early. there are five republicans and four democrats, and that really tells you much of what you need to know. and it is true that the justices wear robes because they're supposed to look all alike, and this was, you know, supposed to give the perception that they're all pretty much the same. but just as on the other side of first street, the united states congress is deeply divided, according to party, so was the united states supreme court. and this is a moment of real partisan division at the supreme court. and that is exemplified in case
of the court to say what will law is and that was an expression of his understanding that the power of the judicial review is inherent in our constitutional system and that wasn't self-evident at all. so that is the power of jurisdiction, limits on jurisdiction that somebody has to have a standing at one its jurisdiction. that's another thing the court basically made up. other courts won't necessarily have that. a few years ago to give very interesting kind of judicial trip to south africa which is a fabulous constitution, modern constitution and a wonderful supreme court. the south african constitution gives people all kinds of positive rights of the right to housing and education and a right to health and its job and all this. our constitution of course doesn't. our constitution is of - rights, the government shall not in the bill of rights the government shall not. it's against the power of the government. south africa constantly rights they have no limit the supreme court has no limitation on jurisdiction. somebody can come into court and say the constitution promises me a job a
that gap. there are six product of harvard law school and three products at yale on the supreme court. there are apparently no other law schools in the united states besides those two. it is a bizarre and unfortunate fact i think actually. but those are i hope interesting facts about the supreme court. but frankly i don't think that they are very important. here is an important fact about the supreme court. there are five republicans and four democrats. i will speak for somewhat longer. but this is basically all you need to know. if there is a takeaway i've gotten to the point earlier there are five republicans and four democrats and that tells you much of what you need to know. it is true the justices where the roads because they are supposed to look alike and it's supposed to give the perception that they are all pretty much the same. but just as the united states congress is a deeply divided according to the party, so is the united states supreme court, and this is a moment of partisan division at the supreme court, and of that is exemplified in case after case. why this is of impo
signing statements, which i thought he was saying he did not have to obey the law, but what happened was, there was a legitimate, strong argument being made by the president's supporters in favor of why the president had the use statements to distance himself from legislation. there were also very strong arguments by people like me who says that that is unconstitutional. the american bar association appointed a task force to look into these findings and i was a member of that task force, and then the president of the aba and i testified before a house committee and, guess what? even though a good face was being made for the president to issue and sign the statements, not one single democrat, not one saw any merit in his argument. even though i thought and a lot of other people thought that what the president was doing was clearly unconstitutional, the president saying i don't have to obey the law that i just time, not one republican done anything wrong with it. on issue after issue, foreign policy or anything else, we divide into these parties. first of all, there is nothing in the const
in constitutional law. well, i'm here to say something about the argument of this book, which as you can have heard is called "i am the change." and the title is meant to bring out president obama's louis the xiv side. louis the xiv said -- i am the state. and mr. obama became very close in an press conference to saying i am the change. the title is actually from suggestion of my editor. and publishers, i had entertained another possibility, which was actually suggested to me my my friend bill. barack obama, what the hell were we thinking? [laughter] as opposed to some of my conservative colleagues and friends, i don't think we get very far by labeling president obama a socialist or by trying to trace his foreign origins or his secret muslim "devotions" nor i do think even that we greatly alumni nate things by to -- as my old friend argues in his movie and two books about obama. i think it's fairer to begin fairer and more useful in the end -- excuse me. to begin admitting president obama is what he call himself namely a progressive or a liberal. and the rest of the title is on barack obama and the
all the decisions about their salaries, benefits, work worlds and they have laws and regulations that govern themselves. and if these politicians don't perform guess what? they throw them out and put their money behind somebody else. these unions will do anything in their power to elect politicians who will serve their interests. they will spend hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of their members dues on politics. they will send an political and political ground troops which they will include paid volunteers to get out the vote. they will form alliances and donate to leftist organizations who will support a pro-union agenda or go money flows my friends from government employee unions to politicians back to the same unions in a never-ending cycle of greed and corruption. politicians know that union money will cycle back to them in return for their pro-union votes and if they cross those unions, the unions will throw them right out of office. unions reward their friends and punish their enemies very effectively. and the amount of money they can bring to bear as neighbor
make about the same. first year associates in law firms make about the same. the women on average choose to work fewer hours than men. full-time is about 35 hours a week. and women work about. many women go in and out of the work force as they have children. and that on average reduces their average earnings. but it doesn't mean they're discriminated against. it doesn't mean that if you take two women and two men in the same job they don't end the same. they do. >> what is the paycheck fairness act, do you think it's necessary. >> the paycheck fairness act was up again voting in congress. it failed. there was a failed when -- it would require firms to report to the government the women they have on their payroll, the men they have on the payroll, how much they pay both groups, that's an attempt of the government to troy to equalize pay between groups of men and women. rather than as the law holds right now men and women in the come rabble job. they try to set equal pay for equal. which are two different things. there's no reason why groups of women and groups of men in the same fi
. >> primarily senator old ridge was the only one not a banker. he was spearheading. >> the father-in-law to john rockefeller. >> he is tied in closely with the banking industry and the industrial complex. a wealthy guy in his own right. probably the most political figure in the united states short of the president who was wood row will sob in those days. the rest guys are bankers and they represented the din city of jpmorgan and the rockefeller dynasty. they had connections. they were connectioned to the roth childs in england. and max there. there was. he had connections to the brother max who was the head of the banks that banking consortium in germany and the nether land. we have a international group here, really. representing international people. and it was the e peed my of the bad bankers of the world theeps were quites. what happened is they knew that there was going to be a move to control banking. they knew that congress was going to pass some kind of haw to regulate banking. instead of being stupid and sitting back and saying i hope they don't too bad. they decided to take the lead. t
" is much law-abiding and much more manipulative and vicious than the joseph holt i know and underhanded. i think one of the things that the film tries to suggest is the federal government largely in the person of edwin stanton and the person of joseph holt basically railroaded poor mary to her death, and without any interest in what the truth was. they determined that she how would hang regardless and they went after her poor mary. and this just isn't the way the assassination trial played out. there was no deal between stanton and holt to make sure that she was convicted an son. it makes him out to a truly vengeful, two-dimensional character and doesn't reflect who he is as i know him. >> during the administration must have been a difficult job. could you sort of expand upon what that job was maybe before the war and the job that he ended up in? >> well, the job the before the war was basically there was one person who had a small office who kept track of whatever sorts of military sense occurred in an army that was 16,000 people strong. right up prior to the war. that's how big the u.s.
-- berkeley where he attended law school. he was, i'm sad to report, not much of a student, but he was a joiner of fraternities and maker of friends. and it was there at berkeley that he came of age just as california bulldozed its way into a new kind of politics in state history. the political movement that warren was witness to was, importantly from the his perspective, led by a trial lawyer. even as a somewhat shy young boy, warren had dreamed of practicing law in a courtroom, and as a college student he had the opportunity to watch up close one of the most arresting trial lawyers of his generation. hiram johnson, of whom i'm speaking, was a young lawyer in san francisco who was could upon to take over a corruption case against the city's mayor and some co-conspirators in a bribery scandal. he took over the case, he was second chair of the case at the outset but took over the first chair when the lead prosecutor was shot in the head in court by a dismissed juror. law students, take note. [laughter] it -- johnson made his name in that case and went on to serve as governor of cali
, and that it should be abolished, regardless of what the laws of the state or the country said at the time. she came to brunswick because her husband got a job at bowdoin college. he stayed in ohio and and later moved to andover, in order to complete his contract there is a professor. she came without him with their children, and she was also six months pregnant. and she moved to brunswick in order to take up residency here, awaiting the arrival of her husband. the stories that were told of harriet beecher stowe is that she was a small and petite woman. she did not take much care in terms of how she dressed. but she was also very numerous for a woman of her time. she was known then mostly as a housewife. she wrote that she was totally overwhelmed with the number of children -- she had seven and she was pregnant -- that is what you would see as an overworked housewife and mother who came to worship here, probably with her children and her sisters, catherine beecher, and they all became members of this church. we first meet uncle tom in his hut. he is in a slave huts. he is learning to read the bible.
this matrix of election laws and systems and regulations shape who gets elected and the policy in the country and they determine or shape the level of mercury in the air that we brief, how many kids are in a classroom in the city of detroit, so they have a huge impact the we don't always appreciate. >> explain how that matrix works. where do they start and how far do they go? >> one unique thing about the united states is that we don't have a central system in terms of the election. we have got over 4,000 difrent election systems and the of different rules and laws and people who administer them said there isn't like one puppet master like some grand conspiracy. we've got all these different systems and the people that are familiar with the most common example of this which would be gerrymandering where politicians draw districts that favor them. congress is about a 14 or 15% approval rating or maybe even lower than that. yet 85% of members of congress are safe because they have drawn their districts or state legislatures have drawn their districts so that those members are safe so that is th
to agree with you with their level of investments. >> second row on the side. >> after rule of law committee for the oceans, in the mid century, nicholas said geography was one of the most important factors in foreign affairs because it was the most permanent. this year we just saw the arctic icecap dropped another 750,000 square kilometers and appears to be opening more this session. what do you think this trend will mean not next year or even next decade but in a generation as that becomes more open for russia and canada in particular. >> nicholas pikeman is someone i devote a whole chapter to in this book because he is very provocative and here is the man who when it was unclear that china where defeat japan, predicted that china who is our ally at the time would become our adversary for geographical reasons and also said when europe was fighting for its life against germany, united europe could be a competitor for the united states. she was very clear volume. in terms of the arctic icecap, this is playing out over decades. if you had an arctic open for shipping and a close frie
-- pill to swallow and the best way to get them to do that was to stress that this was the law. this was the rule of law and he is president was going to take care of the law. it made it much easier, and easier pill for the south to swallow. [applause] >> jonathan is great to be with you today and with all the booklovers at this fabulous festival and with a very distinguished biographer, jean edward smith way think has contributed immeasurably to the eisenhower scholarship and i have to agree he was underestimated definitely and i'm so glad that you have written such a powerful book. i think it's fascinating in reading the book to see that more of the book is focused on the military career, even though as you've just spent almost most of your time talking about the incredible eight years of of the eisenhardt registration, the estate leaned over and whispered to me i have never heard the interstate highway system applauded before. pretty exciting. first-time. >> all those people who were applauding are now going to get on 395 and be stuck in traffic or three hours. [laughter] po
lost his job. the brennan center at nyu school of law has been thorough investigation at the idea of voter fraud. they say basically it doesn't exist. there've been 10 or 12 cases in the first 10 years of this century out of hundreds of millions of those spirits someone may register as mickey mouse, but mickey mouse never shows up in rows. but nevertheless, rove has initiated a cam pain and its allies in more than 30 states legislature of having votes requiring voter ids. now part of the democrats are saying this is a severe form of voter suppression. that is in many cases you find the elderly was given up their drivers licenses, but it's perfect years, the out they no longer have a government issued i.d., so they are not allowed to vote. you have minorities that is hispanic. one of the challenge is hispanic timebomb. now there'll be 70 million in 2020. if they start to vote on that, it's going to be curtains for the republican speakers 10 million hispanics in texas alone. states like texas and arizona will flip from red to blue very soon, when sakic said. so this is one thing the
significant to link them. his support for lincoln's policies are very important in the story is just an law so i thought it was time somebody brought that story to light. >> we are the maine state library in a public reading room and were going the maine author's collection. in the early 1920s, henry tunick who is the state laboring at the time started collecting books by maine writers trying to get them signed whenever possible and it has grown into this. >> welcome to maine's capital city on booktv. with the help of our time warner cable partners or the next 90 minutes we will explore the literary culture of this area as we visit with local authors and explore special collections that help tell the history of not only this state but the country as well. >> this is the first parish church in brunswick maine and it's significant to the story of uncle tom's cabin. in many plays places stories began here. it is here in this pew, pew number 23 that harriet beecher stowe by her account saw a vision of uncle tom dean clips to death. now uncle tom, as you probably know, is the title, the hero of her
-year associates and law firms make about the same. but women on average choose to work fewer hours than men, even when they work full-time. full-time is anything about 35 hours a week. women work about 12% fewer hours. about 25% work in and out of the workforce as they have children. that, on average, would beat the average earnings. but it doesn't mean that they are discriminated against or that if you take two women and two men in the same job, they don't match up. >> host: what is the paycheck fairness act? >> guest: the paycheck fairness act failed. it also failed when there was a democratic house, senate, and president. barack obama himself said that it would require us to report to the government, the women they have on the payroll, the men they have on the payroll, how much they paid those groups, and that is an attempt of the government to try to equalize pay between groups of women and groups of men. rather than, as well all holds right now, men and women in comparable jobs in the same jobs. so what they are trying to do is have people pay for equal work, not equal pay to equal work, whi
now of the right is because of a law for the greece, under greek law, whatever party comes in first, i will take a step back. it has proportional representation. that the reserves a rule of comment. you should have the same percentage of delegates in congress that write the law. 18% of the people while party a, and it will come to deciding what laws get passed. they will effectively screwed that in which you would think of the idea. in european countries, we have torsional representation. you get a cut off of 5%. that is how many seats that you get. if you get 51% of the vote, you get it all and the 49% worked. by the way, we have had proportional representation in the united states in the past, and even have it now. when you read about a primary and the vote in some states, and candidate a gets another delegate conventions, that is a proportional representation and they get an equal number of delegates than what they got out of the vote. we actually recognize in the united states proportional representation, we just don't allow these days. one of the reasons for that, if i can be allo
class i or comet that would seem to be the law of the jungle is aware, are categorically different as well. we can certainly see this radical dehumanization inerrant history. black slaves are not only that they are, but were fundamentally different than their white slave owners. never remaining wholly in the realm of either philosophy or psychology, but i was training samples from her experience in the world, smith argues that they want to overcome our tendons used to dehumanize, which lead to atrocities and genocide, we must look these tendencies square in the face. we must study down honestly, openly, in order to control them. "less than human" has garnered lavish praise from scholars. in the evolutionary psychology, looks like smith should be required reading for all with a social conscience. his ideas that define their way into every school curriculum. the psychologist paul bloom calls it a beautiful book on an ugly topic. charles w. mills, dean of moral philosophy calls it, and i quote, a powerful and original work that forces us to recognize the monstrous atrocities are routi
. not all of them, but found that i have heard speak because politics has changed the law in the last even 30 years, where now the media and people who are running everything is so polarized and i feel like another kind of that divide also created is a lot of people like if you're into business, you're dramatically like a republican or something like that. or if you are not into business, then you're just completely to the other side. i feel that you shouldn't have to be like that. if you want to start your own business, you can be a democrat, whatever. there's just a lot of unneeded social pressure in that aspect. >> god bless the american businessman. i am for the henry ford who at their own money built up a producing company and by the way doubled the pay of the workers because it occurred to him, hey, maybe it's my own workers can afford to buy the product they make, i will make my products. a lot of people laugh over engine charlie wilson who is the secretary of defense under eisenhower. they always mangled the quote. they say what is good for general motors is good for america. now,
can practice our laws as we see fit. >> more about harriet beecher stowe's this weekend as booktv, american history tv and c-span local content vehicles with behind-the-scenes at the history of literary life of augusta, maine and noon eastern on booktv on c-span2 and sunday at 5:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. >> michael grunwald presents his thoughts on the $800 billion stimulus bill, the american recovery reinvestment act signed into law by president obama on february 17, 2009. this is about 50 minutes. [applause] >> thanks, all of you, for coming and braving the rain. i am thrilled to start by 4 in new york. my wonderful parents are here. the only new yorkers who go to florida to visit their grandchildren. there are a lot of facts and figures and fun characters and colorful stories. i knew it was going to be controversial and it would be revisionist history of the obama stimulus and everybody hates the obama stimulus. obama he did too. a year after it passed a percentage of americans who believe the stimulus created jobs was lower than the percentage of americans w
the law. and i said they were bad laws. their customs, they were tradition, and we wanted america to be better to live up to the declaration of independence, make real our democracy. when i got arrested the first time this books and i felt free. i felt liberated and today more than ever i feel free in the liberated. abraham lincoln 150 years ago freed the slaves but it took the modern-day civil rights movement to elaborate a nation. [applause] i know some of you are asking where did you get the name "across that bridge," where do to get the title from, life lessons and the vision for change? just like a few short years ago since this is an election year, hundreds and thousands and millions of people come in 11 states and the old confederacy from virginia to texas couldn't register to vote simply cause of the color of their skin. people stood in line. it took a state like the state of mississippi in 1963, 1964, 1965 more than four need to keep those in the but only about 16 those and were registered to vote. there was a county in my native state of alabama and the heart of the blac
was he at the nuts and bolts of law, the procedures and corporate procedures. >> she was very good at picking juries. he was a great judge of human nature. he was very good at cross-examination, but he was awful at the technical part of the law, and he would pick up in his famous case, arthur garfield hayes was the attorney for the american civil liberties union. the judge would say, all right. we're going to have an argument on that point of law. parents to you want to come back into my office. leyritz was sick, no, let arthur and of that. i don't do that. earlier in his career, i don't know how many of you had to read but the author was an attorney. he became the legal partner. most of the legal brief writing, when they had to go into the appeals court was done by masters. there is a whole chapter about their very famous falling got and the incredible spite they had for each other for the rest of their lives. they were both very greedy, womanizers, and both convinced that they were literary men thrown into the wrong profession and what they really needed was peace and quiet that
of the obstacles that she face. more women than men are in law school and medical school now. and so, when elizabeth dole would describe how she was one of 24 women at harvard law school, is really an older notion at this point. if you get distances her from the younger audience is. so i don't think it's a good idea for modern women candidate to keep describing the obstacles they face and how unique they are because we tend to resist voting for someone who was the first of anything because it seems scary and probably not a good idea because it's never done it before. so i think taking attention away from that is better. >> and not labeling issues as women's issues are feminist issues. i think all the women in the book really didn't run as women. there's a book called running as a woman. but when pat schroeder ran the first time for congress on colorado, someone asked her to come her to come into play and is running as a woman? her question was, do i have another option? [laughter] it is obvious this is a woman. it's obviously never had a woman president. so i don't think you need to make a
in the other financial institutions and the answer is that there is no law that they could hang them on. they could find nothing illegal and it wasn't for the want of trying and that's why we've still not seen the high level executives go to jail and why they are trying to push forward all of this nonsense financial reform the haven't been able to do. >> i don't know if it was for want of trying. >> you have the attorney general and the banks to own the place as upset about the senate. there wasn't an urge to prosecute. there were three questions i just want to be fair to affairs if you could change any part of the book, what would it be? >> that's a good question. i wonder if they mean if i would have written something or if the book history could have been different. >> if i would have written something differently that is an interesting question. i would like to have actually talked to kerry killinger, so that would have changed. i could have spent the entire book talking about the last month because there were so many politics and the decision appeared. >> has anyone been fascinated
is banned, there is no rule of law, and perceived political infractions are met with harsh punishment. punishment that it needed out to three generations of person's family. a political offender knows that with he goes to prison, his parents and his children will probably go with him. there are probably about 200,000 north koreans today, and more than a million perhaps as high as 2 million have already died there. the reason we know all of this is and much, much more is thanks to the testimonies of north koreans who have escaped. these are the people i write about in my book. this knowledge comes to us despite the best effort of the kim family regime to keep it secret. for more than fifty years, ever since the end of the korean war, they have within saled off from the world's eyes. the kim family regime pursued an eyelationist policy and mains an iron grip on information. access to which is very strictly controlled. to give just one example, every radio must be registered with the government. and it's dial must be fixed to the government run radio station. to enforce this rule, securi
of what was his first election. we continue to get materials from his office in the law firm in new york city, and it's still getting awards and generating material for his career and so they come to rest over time. in 1990 having just been elected the senate majority leader, mitchell was involved in the 1990 amendments to the act and this is a letter from george h. w. bush thanking him for his collaboration and succeeding in getting that legislation passed. the 1990 amendment was important for us today. we paid $4 a gallon for gas in the sense that it was the amendment that discussed the composition of gas and the introduction of chemicals during certain seasons of the year in order to make for cleaner air. in a sample of his writing style. there are researchers to come because they're interested in particular topics but there's also people that come because the interested in particular techniques or approaches. some people are interested in the newspapers because of the negotiation for instance. and so this is a research question that bridges a variety of the records that we have and o
the north in and the south and how people fought that as the historian john law points out, left out of this account were competing narratives and i'm quoting, one of those narratives was a story of slavery, emancipation and freedom unquote. his mandate is long to put that narrative back into the official account of the civil war. in his other works since that book including beyond the battlefield race in the civil war passages to freedom the underground railroad and history and memory and they slave no more, two men who escaped to freedom including their narratives of emancipation. and countless articles, essays and lectures david blight has returned this theme of memory and commemoration and what it means to conflate the subjective accounts with fact and history and not to recognize them as subjective at all. now he comes to us with that -- "american oracle' the civil war in the civil rights era which brings this new ones exploration into the 20th century. as we approach this as quick -- sesquicentennial blight brings to light for american writers with their own perspectives to bea
rights. i'm sure there are some lawyers or law students here in the room, and when you read the book and you read legal documents about declaration, the accord in 1920, you understand that there are gigabytes, international 19 legal rights of jews to the land. but there's something else which i haven't found elsewhere when i wrote the book, and i call it the common sense right. when you go to a war and you win a war, you don't give land you wondering that were. and what's happening now, since we won the war, and the side that was aggressive and started the war is coming to us and saying, you know what? i want my land back. it doesn't work that way. even here in the u.s. when it was with mexico, and you want, nobody came to you and told you, you know what, we lost the war, we want our land back. and i think the common sense right is something that states very straight to you. and our neighbors should know that if they would start another war with us, they would not keep any price. on the contrary, if you lose, you lose. and i think talking about the right is something very important t
what happened. hamas has closed opinions about many issues like sharia law, is real, united states, they could walk together to find a way. i do not want to an ex the baidu think they should be connected to jordan and egypt. it cannot happen tomorrow. we will have to wait. two years ago we would have told to the president would be caged in jail in cairo you would think i am in st.. today tell you the long term should be the linkage between the palestinians and jordan and those in the gaza with egypt. things change repast we have to put forward what we think is best. >> i see that as dangerous and there is also a moral issue. thank you will. >> i was in jerusalem 1973 when the war broke out as 71 not send weapons to the middle east because we do not want to encourage the war that has just guarded which sounded noble but at the same time they were sending weapons to the syrians and egyptians. my concern is with the fiery and gets the atomic bomb unquestioned is not that the egyptians will say we want the same toy but the point* is the egyptians or suni this garcetti arabia are suni i
] >> well, the first constitution is so different from ours. underwritten, accumulation of laws and traditions. their subjects of the queen. that is what, you know, the term is. >> i need to ask, asking questions just temporarily, please stick around for more questions from the audience. c-span will be here shortly to continue. there will be taking questions year from that history and biography pavilion and also from national colors. please stay with us. we would love to have you continue. and if you have questions, we will be back with you in it slightly less than ten minutes. thanks so much for your patients. please stay with us, and please thank our author >> visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs you see here online. type the author or book title in the search bar on the upper left side of the page and click search. you can also share anything you see on booktv.org easily by clicking share on the upper left side of the page and selecting the format. booktv streams live online for 48 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors. booktv.org. >> quickly, sal
no child left behind has come into law is the kind of national psychosis, but there's something psychotic about it. it can't be numbered. it doesn't count. my father's psychiatrist use to take me to the back boards of mental hospitals in massachusetts and so many people on the most severe depression the only way they could ease their discomfort is by numbering everything. they would restlessly move object surrounded the table to get them in the pattern, and as i mentioned, some of the bureaucrats in washington maybe they would enjoy este in the recovery house to get over this numerical what action. this hoping of judging children and their teachers primarily on the basis of that very narrow slice of purely mechanistic skills that can be measured more simplistically by standardized exam and ruling out as a consequence ruling out all of those more authentic forms of culture that are not reduced to numbers like reading books for pleasure. it's the only reason i read a book. you get no points for pleasure or asking thoughtful questions or indulging curiosity, developing real critical capacity
. the first year associates and law firms make about the same but women on average choose to work fewer hours than men. even when they work full time because you know full time is anything above 35 hours a week. women work about 12% fewer hours. about 25% of women work part-time. many women go in and out of the workforce if they have children and that on average is their average earnings but it doesn't mean they are discriminated against. it doesn't mean that if you take two women into men in the same job they don't earn the same. they do. >> what is the paycheck fairness act and do you think it's necessary? >> the paycheck fairness act just was up again for a vote in congress. it failed. is also failed when there is a demographic -- democratic house, and senate. that is because it would require them to report to the government that women they have on their payroll, the men they have on their payroll and how much they paid those groups and that attempted to equalize pay between groups of women in groups of men rather than as both wall holds right now men and women in comparable jobs come in t
talking about their legal rights and i am sure there are some law students in the room. when you read the book and the legal documents about the declaration, you understand about legal advice and international, finding, legal rights to jews and the rights to the land. i call this the common sense rights. [inaudible] this side was aggressive and started the war in and saying, you know, above my land back, -- even in the united states, nobody comes and tells you that we want our land back after we lost the war. the common sense rights should be something that should be said straightly. it enables us to espouse another role. [inaudible] if you lose, you lose. i've been talking about the rights about something very important, many times because of the pressure, coming from washington and the u.s., we tend not to speak about what belongs to us and what we believe, and i chose the name of the book "isreal: the will to prevail" because i think it is all about us. if we have the will to live, the will and the courage of the nation, we would be able to prevail. if we would try to satisfy every
of law, protection of property, and a wonderful society that spins off innovation. >> host: michael, do you foresee china becoming the world's largest economy, and is that a bad thing? >> guest: it's not a bad thing for china to become the world's largest economy, and if things go well in china as they may or may not, that probably happens in the next decade or two, but bear in mind that china has so many people that the per capita income in china will still be far lower than our per capita income. moreover, even when china has the world's largest economy, that does not make them the world leader and enable them to do the things the united states does for the world. the reason we wrote the book, "that used to be us" because we believe the american global role is not just unique, but in most ways at most times uniquely value l. it helps us, and it helps the whole world. the world would be a less peaceful place without the exansive role, but in order to continue to play that role, we have to meet the four challenges that we outline in the book. all of which is to say, among other things,
Search Results 0 to 38 of about 39 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)